AN ANALYSIS OF THE MADARAS ROTOR POWER PLANTAN ALTERNATE METHOD FOR EXTRACTING LARGE AMOUNTS OF POWER FROM THE

WIND
'

Volunie 1. Executive Summary

J una 197%.

U.S. Department 74-GT ++ of Energy +-- . 2L A

:-

-;

% n.u3-lv=

.*fa=+!ll:

-.:Lr-.-, L -

>,,--

. =

- xk%k . - 5 %m7

*Eka-i n d e A 5 i - - ;

w-s%-a !
y-*

Solar Energy

DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency Thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document.

DSE-2554-78/2(V01.1)
Distribution Category UC-60

AN ANALYSIS OF THE MADARAS 'ROTOR POWER PLANT ---- AN ALTERNATE METHOD FOR EXTRACTING LARGE AMOUNTS OF POWER FROM THE WIND
VOLUME 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Dale H. Whitford John E. Minardi Blaine S. West Robert J. Dominic

UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON RESEARCH INSTITUTE 300 College Park Avenue Dayton, Ohio 45469

June 1978
~

DISCLAIMER

-

PREPARED FOR
-

-- -

. -- -

.

-.

THE UNITED STATES ENERGY RESEARCH AVD DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION DIVISION OF SOLAR ENERGY FEDERAL WIND ENERGY PROGRAM

ERDA CONTRACT NO. E(49-18)-2554

T H I S PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY L E F T BLANK .

Drawings and specifications of the system were used to estimate costs. annual output. Electricity is generated by alternators on each car that are geared to the wheels. to react with the wind like a sail and propel an endless train of connected cars around a closed track at constant speed. vertically mounted on flat cars.PROJECT SUMMARY The purpose of the program was to analyze and up-date the design of the Madaras Rotor Power Plant concept that had been developed in the 1930's to determine the technical and economic feasibility of this system to be competitive with conventional horizontal axis wind turbines. and energy cost as a function of plant size parameters. and an electrical system design to provide a realistic set of inputs to a performance trade study which provided the basis for selecting a single rotor configuration and set of operating conditions which were considered to represent a good. an electro-mechanical analysis. Electrical power is transmitted from each car to the power house by a trolley system. and a cost analysis was conducted. Studies to determine the minimum spacing between cars governed by inter-rotor aerodynamic interference also were conducted. mechanical component design. These cost studies incorporated appropriate learning curves to account for reduction in cost resulting from improved production techniques and increased productivity. Supporting studies included structural design. The Madaras concept uses rotating cylinders. A four-task program consisting of a series of wind tunnel tests. but not necessarily an optimum design. iii . a performance analysis. and parametric cost/performance computer runs were made to correlate plant cost. Wind tunnel tests were conducted to validate rotating cylinder data in the literature and to obtain non-existing data that relates aerodynamic performance to rotating cylinder (rotor) geometry.

it is not possible to state conclusively whether or not the Madaras system will significantly out-perform a similarly-sized horizontal axis wind turbine system. Therefore. (However. A substantial economic benefit favoring the Madaras scheme does not appear. although this possibility may exist (under more "optimal" designs determined through more detailed analysis). and hence will require higher operation and maintenance costs than horizontal axis machines.Primary results of this study are: Madaras plants having circular track plan-forms probably will not be economically attractive. Further. Madaras plants are more complex. amount and efficiency in use of land. have higher electrical and mechanical losses. and analyses indicated that even larger. a racetrack plant configuration for Madaras plants limits them to regions having generally unidirectional winds (including reciprocal directions) in which large expanses of relatively flat land are available. o Madaras racetrack plants appear to be competitive with a farm of MOD-1 horizontal axis machines of equal total power generation capability (to within the overall accuracy of estimation for both schemes) in cost per unit rated power and cost per unit of energy delivered. . in view of this potential.) At this stage of the investigation. more efficient plants could be developed. Cost comparisons were based upon estimates made in this study and estimates made by 13ightower1 and General J3lectric2 for the MOD-1 machine. and possibly energy cost. Thus. Madaras plants can produce energy in the quantities of interest to the electric utility industry. Madaras racetrack plants having rated capacities as high as 228 MW and annual energy outputs of 975 x lo6 kW-hr/year were studied. it appears that an in-depth optimal design study of the system is warranted. but those having racetrack plan-forms appear to be of interest. The Madaras system seems to outperform horizontal axis systems in the areas of structural durability. economy of scale. similarly-sized HA-WTG plants require twice the land area as Madaras plants.

Mechanical. 2.TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1. . PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS COST/PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS 5.1 3. 6.2 Structural. PAGE BACKGROUND WIND TUNNEL TESTS ELECTROMECHANICAL DESIGN 3. Site Design Electrical Design 3. 4.

nr Car Cnnfi g11raf. 2.25 and 2. and d = 152 mm. R e v i s e d Rnt. Freestream CL and CD versus U/V. Power Required to Rotate Cylinder for Various End Cap Diameter Ratios and Two Aspect Ratios. 19 21 23 Net Power Output for One Rotor. Comparison of Lift-Drag Polars of a Rotating Cylinder and an Airfoil. and e/d Ratios of 1. ' 152 mm Diameter Cylinder and Car Ready for Simulated Boundary Test. Track Speed = 8. one End Cap on Top or Two End Caps.i on. 8 10 11 12 Typical Design Loads for 8. 13. New Jersey. Spin Motor Power. 15 16 Rotor Car End Truck Aaacrnbly. CD. Madaras Rotor Tested in 1933 at Burlington. AR = 3 and 6. Power versus U/V for Boundary Layer Tests fur e/d Ratios of 1. and 3. . S i d c View. 152 mm Cylinder in Tunnel with Lower Streamlined airing and Mirror Strut. e/d = 3 End Plates. Regenerative Braking. PAGE 2 7 7 Front View. 152 mm Cylinder in Tunnel with Lower Streamlined Fairing. and d = 152 I I U U .9 m/s. CL. Plant Layout.LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS FIGURE Madaras Rotor Power Plant. AR = 6.0 m/s (18 mph) Mean Design 13 Wind Speed. AR of 3 and 6.25. Internal Support Tower for Madaras Rotor. and a Three-Step Transmission to Vary the Spin schedule. Electrical Schematic of Circuitry on Each Rotor Car. Optimum Motor Size and Maximum Power Output versus Track Diameter. and 26 Motor rpm versus Rotor Position on Track as Affected by Use of Viscous Braking.4 m/s (30 mph) Wind Speed.

1 m/s @ 9 m. Energy Cost versus Rated Power for Racetrack Configuration as a Function of Inter-Rotor Spacing. DOE Design Wind Duration Curve: V = 8.000 ft) Straight Sections. DOE Design Wind Duration Curve: V = 8.4 m/s. . Respectively. 18 19 Mutual ~nterferenceLoss Factor versus. Length of Straight Section of Track. as a 27 Function of Wind Speed.13). . and Number of Rotors.LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Concluded) FIGURE PAGE Net Power Output from one Rotor v. 30 20 21 30 22 32 23 32 .6 m/s Design Wind Duration Curve at 25-m Height (Figure 6.a Racetrack having 1370 m (4500ft) ~iameterEnds and 488@ M (16. Unit Plant Cost versus Rated Power for Racetrack Configuration as a Function of Inter-Rotor Spacing. Constant Rotor Speed and Track Speed of 186 rpm and 13. wind speed 29 for Various Numbers of Rotors on a 1524-m ~iameter Track.. is Presented for Both a 1370 m (4500 ft) Diameter Circular. Modified Design Wind Duration Curve to Represent Wind Conditions at a Rotor Mid-Height. Length of Straight Section of Track.1 m/s @ 9 m. Performance.ersus A . o f 2 5 m (82 ft) Above Mean Terrain Level..Track and .14 Based on the V = 9. Power Duration Curves for the Two Plants Shown in Figure 6. and Number of Rotors.

LIST OF TABLES PAGE 1 2 3 Wind Tunnel Test Conditions Effect of and Cost. and Mean Wind Speed (V) on Plant and Energy Cost Overall Comparison of Several Madaras and HA-WTG Plants at Two Wind Regions 6 . Learning Curves.

Minardi. Vas for SERI .ic analysis conducted by . West were responsible for the structural analysis x i d P 4 r . study. University of Michigan. Mr. and Mr. and Mr. model installation. Daniel 0. a The authors wish to express their appreciation for the excellent contribution to this program made by the personnel of the Gas Dynamics Laboratory.Iott were responsible for instrumentation. Dominic conducted the electrical analysis. assistance in developing the test plan. Francis Shannon of Maier and Associates. and o p e r a t i o n of. Aerospace Engineering Department. Willmarth. the detailed structural and mechanical design layout done by Mr. Scharf was responsible for directing tests and processing the data. United States Energy Research and Development Administration (now the Department of Energy). Test supervision and scheduling of support for the tests was provided by Mr. with Dr. Division of Solar Energy. Robert J. Overall guidance. Irwin E. sponsored by the Wind Systems Branch. Whitford. conducted the preliminary performance analyses. We also want to acknowledge other major contributions: the vortex anlaysis study conducted by Professor Harold Larsen of the Air Force Institute of Technology. David R. Cletus.FOREWORD This final report describes the study conducted by the University of Dayton Research Institute on Contract E(49-181-2554. and coordinating all aspects of the University of Michigan effort was provided by Professor William W. Levere F. Mr.the w i n d tunnel. Robert Thresher for ERDA and Dr. Dale H. Charles Hogan. Starner and Mr. the econom. Project monitors on the program were Dr. John E. planned the wind tunnel tests. who. The program was later transferred to the Solar Energy Research Institute. Glass. and analyzed the wind tunnel test data. The study was under direction of Mr. Leo Griffin. development of the method for generating the simulated atmospheric boundary layer. Mr. Blaine S.

Cisler. Frank L. the consultation provided by Mr. Walker L. Russell F. E. Lapin of the Aerospace Corporation. Wattendorf. and the helpful comments and critique of this work given by Dr.E.Mr. former Chairman of the Board of that Company. We are especially appreciative of the support of the Detroit Edison Company and the assistance given by Mr. former Chief Engineer of the Madaras Rotor Power Project. McClellan. Hardy. . and the aerodynamic consultation provided by Dr. John L.

Madaras Rotor Power Plant were conducted in the 1929 to 1934 time period. Twiae during eaah orbit of a rotor car around the track (at points i 90° from the wind). 9 m/s track /speed in a 13. Madaras Rator Power Plant.4 m/e wind. each spinning rotor in turn must be de-spun to a stop. and fullscale aerodynamic tests of the wind-powered.8-m diameter cylinders which were vertically mounted on flat cars and rotated by electric motors to convert wind energy to Magnus-effect forces. The forces propelled an endless train of 18 cars around a 457-m diameter. This cycle is necessary in order to assure that the propulsive farce changes direction so that all rotors are eropelling the train in the same angular direction. . Madaras consisted of 27. This system invented by Julius D.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND Analytical studies. Figure 1. Alternators geared to the car axles were calculated to produce up to 18 NW of electric power at a 8 .4-m high by 6. closed track (Figure 1). wind tunnel experiments. and then spun-up in the opposite direction.

Marlaras Rotor Tested in 1933 at Burlington. with the Director of Research of the Detroit Edison Company serving as project monitor. A unique Leature ol: this p w y r a m was that it was sponsored and monitored by a consortium of seven electric utility companies. New Jersey. T m x fnx mdaras Rotor. versus drag .Force measurements obtained from a full-size rotating cylinder mounted on a stationary platform (Figures 2 and 3) proved that the concept was technically feasible. . but the project was discontinued prior to pilot plant demonstration because of the Depression. The reason for using a rotating cylinder instead of an airfoil to propel the train is that a rotating cylinder generates a lift force about ten times larger than that of an airfoil (Figure 4 shows lift-coefficient. CL. Ineermf Sapport Figure 3. coefficient C Figure 2 . These studies have included . The University of Dayton Research Institute has conducted studies of the Madaras system to verify the initial computations made by Madaras and his co-workers.

Hardy who was the Chief Engineer of the Madaras Rotor Power Corporation. / The primary objective of this program is to demonstrate the degree in which Madaras power plants having capacities in the 10 MW to 200 MW range are competitive with horizontal axis wind turbines. and Figure 4. both the capital cost and the cost of electric power at the busbar of Madaras plants were predicted to be only one-third that of steam power plants in 1934. One of these men is Mr.000 kW plants would cost $38. Thus.23 to 2. depending upon annual wind conditions. Russell F.a thorough review of the literature of the Madaras program (contained in a set of 14 unpublished technical reports obtained from Detroit Edison) as well as discussions with two key men who had worked with the original Madaras project. and the other is Mr. Drag Polars of a Rotating Cylinder Cost estimates in 1934 and an Airfoil.performance simulation studies. Comparison of Lifteconomic analysis. who CYLINDER recently retired from the position of Chairman of the Board of the Detroit Edison Company.50/kW and the cost of power at the busbar would vary from 1. .30 mills/kWh. done by an outside consulting engineering firm indicated that 18. Our studies also have included a review of all wind tunnel tests on rotating TYPICAL LOW SPEED AIRFOIL cylinders conducted since the I I I 0 2 4 6 8 mid 19201s. Walker Cisler.

Structure must be able to operate in wind gusts to 26. . Structure must withstand winds of 53. i o ncurves having 8. and what performance af a Madaras system can be expected when modern. commercially-available electrical and mechanical components are used? What is the capital cost and the cost of electric power generated by modernized Madaras plants of different sizes in various climatic areas of the United States? Design criteria selected for this system are based on those used for the General ~lectricstudy of large horizontal axis wind machines to tadlitate d i r e ~ toomparison of results. Design life of 30 years for rotating parts and SO years for static parts.1 m/s mean w i nrl speed at 9 m height above ground.8 m/s while operating at the rated wind speed of 13. The primary ground rules far this study were: e This was a conceptual design trade study of the basis rirystem proposed by Madaras. These questions were: a What is the fewest numberofrotors required to extract the maximum amount of power per unit land area from the wind? What aerodynamic performance can be expected from full-sized cylinders operating in the lower levels of the atomspheric boundary layers in terms of the various geometric and operational design ~ 7 a ~ i i I h l tw ?h ~i c h r7ffwAt- lp~rfnrmancl~? r WhaL d ~ e LIle desiyu ~t=qui~e~ike~~Ls Tor sLxucLura1. Design wind conditions included: a Wind d u ~ n t .4 m/s. Only off-theshelf hardware and available technology were to be used.The research into the Madaras system conducted by the University of Dayton Research Institute (UDRI) prior to this program lead to several unanswered questions concerning the system.6 m/s with the rotor train standing still on the track. Thus a system design optimizatian analysis was heynnd the scnpe nf the prrrgram. electrical and mechanical subsystems.

5 m (7 ft x 5 ft) subsonic wind tunnel to: Validate existing wind tunnel data on rotating cylinders. and windblown sand and dust. salt vapor. Both 50 mm diameter and 152 mm diameter wind tunnel test models were tested.1 m x 1. a 0 Obtain data on power required to rotate the cylinder. operate in a temperature range of -51°C to +4g°C. High speeds are required on models as small as these to obtain proper surface speed to wind speed ratios (U/V) and to provide sufficiently accurate resolution of loads on the wind tunnel 6-component balance system. flow conditions were designed to represent adequately those of a full-sized Madaras rotor. icins. and to obtain design information for the larger cylinder. A unique aspect of the test series was the series of tests conducted in a simulated atmospheric boundary layer. 2. Evaluate rotating cylinder performance in an atmospheric boundary layer. A summary of the test conditions is presented in Table 1. WIND TUNNEL TESTS Wind tunnel tests were conducted in the University of Michigan's 2. isolate problem areas.000 rpm. and operate in snow. All cylinders were equipped with internally-housed motors capable of rotating the cylinder at speeds from 0 to 20. In all tests. rain.System must withstand hail up to 2.5 cm diameter. (The full-sized cylinder will be designed to rotate at speeds of about 186 rpm. a boundary layer similar to that of wind blowing over grassy plains was simulated by wooden quarter-round strips . lightning.) Over 200 test runs were conducted in the overall test series. For these tests. with the smaller model being used primarily to develop background. Develop aerodynamic characteristics of rotating cylinders with end plates as a function of cylinder and end plate geometry.

2. and then the data were corrected accordingly. These strips which were placed at 0. . . but which cleared the top of the model by about 0.. the effect of the fairing on the aerodynamic coefficients was ascertained. simulated the boundary layer profile quite well across the width of the tunnel.4 x 104 0 . By comparing data obtained with the single and double fairings.3 m intervals from the entrance to the 6.6 1. 152 mm 50 nim 4 3. 2 7 lo4 to 3 x lo5 0 . . Actually. . . .2. 3 2 x 104 to 7. . . . Test Variables Cylinder Diameter Aspect Ratio (AR) End Plate Diameter to Cylinder Diameter Ratio (e/d) Free-Stream Reynolds Number Range Cylinder Surface Speed to Wind Speed Ratio (U/V) NutkIter of End P l a L e s Type Flow Free Stream Atmospheric Boundary Layer Cylinder sn Model Car Cylinder and Car on Embankment Test Combinations ---. the bottom fairing was used to isolate the model support sting (which was mounted to the balance system ) from the air flow.8 mm. .5. . .6 1. Typical photographa of tho 152 mm test mudel during the free stream tests are shown inFfgures5 and 6. . . .6 1. . . 2 + x x x x x x x placed traverse to the wind flow along the floor of the tunnel. . . . . and a typical boundary layer test model is shown in Figure 7. No correction of this sort was required for the boundary layer tests. . . .25.1-m-long test section up to the model. .3 1. TABLE 1 WIND TUNNEL TEST CONDITIONS .4. . It can be seen that the free stream tests were conducted with either a bottom fairing or both a bottom and top fairing. The top fairing was merely a mirror-imaqe strut that was not fastened to the model.

Front View. 152 mm Cylinder in Tunnel With Lower Streamlined Fairing. Figure 6. . Side View.Figure 5. 152 mm Cylinder in Tunnel With Lower Streamlined Fairing Only and Mirror Strut.

..'g Figure 7.#-s. AR = 6. 152 rim Diameter Cylinder and Car Ready for Simulated Boundary Layer Test.. - -. - --... . ..' I X .=La. e/d = 3 End Plates.

This combination would provide high lift. by combining the observations from Figures 8 and 9. it appeared that a good design would be achieved for a rotor having AR = 6 and e/d = 2. Primary observations of importance are: o e Cb increasesdramatically with increased end plate slze. a The power required to rotate the cylinder is presented in Figure 9.that aspect ratios greater than 6 might be even more attractive. Although not presented in the interest of brevity. since wind tunnel size prevented testing a larger cylinder. low drag. especially between e/d = 1. This is a result of reduced induced drag resulting from an apparent increase in aspect ratio caused by the end plate. the surface speed of the rotor divided by the wind speed. Thus. and reasonable power levels for spinning the rotor.25 and e/d = 2. We also concluded .Typical free stream test results for the shortest aspect ratio (AR = 3) and longest (AR = 6) cylinder for all of the three end plate sizes (e/d ratio) are presented in Figure 8. the benefit of increasing e/d beyond 2 is questionable. Two observations are of particular importance: a e There is a significant increase in power absorbed by the rotor for e/d > 2. the lift and drag coefficients are plotted as a function of U/V. measurements of lift moment and drag moment also were obtained . data f0. and curve shapes and magnitudes correlated well with previously-published data for comparable geometries. Here. This parameter is analogous to the angle of attack of an airfoil.r larger aspect ratios would have to be obtained by extrapolation and use of the conventional induced drag equation which is a function of cL2 and AR. Thus. Up until stall occurs. however. There is little difference in power absorbed as a f~nctionof AR. For large values of AR. Results conformed with our expectations. end plate size increases tend to decrease drag coefficient. it appeared that an optimum design point may occur near e/d = 2.

u/v U/V F r e e s t r e a m CL a n d CD v e r s u s U/V.F i g u r e 8. a n d 3 .:nd d = 152 mm. . 2 . . AR of 3 and 6 . 2 5 . and e / d R a t i o s o f 1 .

t h e d a t a t r e n d s and a c c u r a c y a r e s a t i s f a c t o r y . A s with t h e freestream r e s u l t s . and ( 2 ) t h e nonuniform a t m o s p h e r i c boundary f l o w d i s t r i b u t i o n w i t h h e i g h t c a u s e d by t h e wind. velocity S i n c e t h i s c o m b i n a t i o n o f a i r f l o w s c a n n o t be o b t a i n e d i n a wind t u n n e l it was n e c e s s a r y t o d e v e l o p a n e m p i r i c a l model b a s e d on o u r t e s t s . b e c a u s e t h e p r i m a r y r e a s o n f o r t h i s t e s t series was t o o b t a i n aerodynamic d a t a f o r u s e a s an i n d e p e n d e n t check o f o u r model f o r p r e d i c t i n g t h e combined e f f e c t o f t h e two a i r l o a d d i s t r i b u t i o n s t h a t are imposed on t h e r o t o r : (1) t h e uniform a i r l o a d v e r s u s r o t o r h e i g h t c a u s e d by motion a l o n g t h e t r a c k .6 Figure 9 . The c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e s e two f l o w s t o o b t a i n t h e r e s u l t a n t y i e l d s a h e l i c a l load d i s t r i b u t i o n with height. T y p i c a l boundary l a y e r d a t a a r e p r e s e n t e d i n F i g u r e 1 0 . and t h e d a t a v e r i f i e d w e l l o u r p r e d i c t e d c e n t r o i d p o s i t i o n s by o u r model. f o r u s e i n computing t h e c e n t r o i d p o s i t i o n of t h e s e f o r c e s a s a f u n c t i o n o f U/V. . These measurements w e r e o f p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t when we conducted t h e boundary l a y e r t e s t s e r i e s . and d = 152 mrn. u/v ' 20bo ' 4600 RPM ' 6600 ' 8 0 ' 6 ~ 0 0 Power Required t o R o t a t e C y l i n d e r f o r V a r i o u s End Cap Diameter R a t i o s and Two Aspect R a t i o s .

2 5 a n d 2 . AR=6 e/'d 2 I END CAP - 1 ----' . C D ~ Power v e r s u s U/V f o r Boundary L a y e r T e s t s f o r e / d R a t i o s o f 1 . I 0 .-r--- 2END CAPS 8 4 - 2. 0 I 2 3 4 5 F i g u r e 10. o n e End Cap on Top o r Two End Caps./ P 0. CLr .1 2 1 0 . AR = 3 a n d 6 .

f o r t h e o t h e r o r b i t . . Track Speed = 8 . 0 m/s ( 1 8 mpl!) Design Wind Speed. and t r a c k were d e v e l o p e d from i n p u t t i n g t h e d e s i g n c r i t e r i a i n t o o u r Madaras performance s i m u l a t i o n program.Most of . T y p i c a l aerodynamic l o a d s normal and t a n g e n t i a l t o t h e t r a c k f o r a n o p e r a t i o n a l w i n d c o n d i t i o n a r e shown f o r one-half o f t h e o r b i t i n F i g u r e 11. + .DEG Mean F i g u r c 11. The l o a d s . . . ELECTROMECHANICAL DESIGN Design l o a d s on t h e r o t o r . p l a n n e d ) would b e b e n e f i c i a l t o performance. t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s from t h e boundary l a y e r d a t a were s i m i l a r t o t h o s e f o r t h e f r e e s t r e a m d a t a . T y p i c z l D e a i ~ nLoads for 8 . h a l f a r e t h e same. . i t was concluded t h a t t h e u s e o f t o p and b o t t o m end p l a t e s ( i n s t e a d o f one a s Madaras. 9 m / s . In addition. which p r e d i c t s t h e f o r c e s on t h e v a r i o u s components a s a f u n c t i o n o f a n g u l a r p o s i t i o n on t h e t r a c k . tower c a r . r o t o r s u p p o r t . 3.

radial trusses at 4 increments. Car weight. Other load conditions analyzed were : Aerodynamic loading on the end cap. ~ccelerationloads caused by: a Rotor travel around the curved track. and circumferent. 8 Centrifugal body force caused by rotor rotation at 186 rpm.1 The rotor car design concept which evolved from our studies is depicted in FiGure 12.e. All 2024-T4 Alclad aluminum alloy.ially corrugated s k i n .1 m (125 ft) Cylinder diameter = 4. and static operations at hurricane conditions indicated that the operational gust load was the most severe.0 m (36 ft) Car length = 19. A summary of the overall design follows: e Dimensions AR = 8 e/d = 2 Cylinder length = 38. operational. Site Design a e e 3. Mechanical.r :. operational + gust. Semimonicoque.9 m (16 ft) End cap diameter = 9. i Arlyular accele~atiuriduririy rotor spin-up frun~ 0 to 186 rpm.Results of the load analysis for the three wind conditions (i.000 Kg (723.2 m (63 ft) Car height = 3. stressed skin.8 m (12. circumferential truss stiffeners.000 lb) Structural Configuration and Materials R0to.5 ft) Car width = 17.8 m (32 ft) Track gauge = 11.4 m (57 ft) Gross car weight = 328. longer on trusses. Cyclic fatigue loading. Structural. Snow and icc loadc~~ Wheel and lateral restraint loads (idler wheels bearing on the side of the track were used to react lateral loads instead of a flanged wheel.. e . 5 ' Cap: Semimonicoque. A l l 2024-~4 Alclad aluminum alloy.

~ i ~ u r 12. . e Revised Rotor Car Configuration.

.- ..z-L.r e s i s t a n t steel skin. rectangular tube interc o s t a l ~ . Semimonocoque.J ~.and 3 mm-thick s t r e s s e d skin.?&.u p l o n g i t u d i n a l and l a t e r a l box beams 0..w~o.I.< P O " . one a t - a r e 1 . See F i g u r e 1 3 . s k i n t h i c k n e s s v a r i a b l e from 9 .pment. I~"".. R o t o r Car End Truck Asseinbly.. Floor steel-reinforced c o n c r e t e f o r b a l l a s t and e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r o t e c t i o n for e l e c t r i c a l cql. e Suspension system: F o u r .. f o r g e d AISC 1045 s t e e l ~ a c h h a r d e n e d t o d e p t h o f 2 5 mm.. . t r u c k i s coupled through a speed i n c r e a s e r to a 2 5 0 kW.9 m t o 1 .j SIOIQ.79 mrn t r e a d . 2 2 m d e e p .- -- . Wh@cls t r u c k s .. 2 m d i a m e t e r w i t h a 2..... frame o f b u i l t .H.OW. . .rrrS ' -. e Rotor C a r : . Thus. 4160 V induct i o n g e n e r a t o r .7 mm.S u p p o r t Tower: Monocoque c y l i n d e r on t o p o f truncated cone. .?l. [..2... ~ . two-wheel each curlier uE . 5 mm t o 12. vat-ii P-. p i p e s k i r t support.Llie car. s . S t r u c t u r a l s t e e l frame w i t h A S T M A-242 c o r r o s i o n . Figure 13.-. i. a l l of A S T M A-242 c o r r o s i o n r e s i s t a n t steel. 1 0 1 I 1 " i . . #O':?l-- . 1 0 0 0 kW of g e n e r a t i n g c a p a c i t y i s provided f o r each r o t o r c a r .

Major mechanical components i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e s u s p e n s i o n s y s t e m sh. A l c l a d aluminum a l l o y p r o v i d e d t h e b e s t d e s i g n from t h e s t r e s s and c o r r o s i o n r e s i s t a n c e s t a n d p o i n t s .60 f t ) r o l l e r bearing. Weight was n o t a problem f o r t h e car and t h e r o t o r s u p p o r t t o w e r .000 l b ) was r e q u i r e d t o p r o v i d e a s u f f i c i e n t l y l a r g e wheel normal f o r c e and h e n c e f r i c t i o n a l f o r c e t o d r i v e t h e 250 k W generator without slipping.39 f t ) OD by 2 . a f t . 256 m (8. s o s t e e l was u s e d .000 K g (723. d r i v e g e a r s . cylindrical r o l l e r bearing.11 f t ) OD by 3. shown i n F i g u r e 1 2 . t h e r o t o r c y l i n d e r and c a p would be f a b r i c a t e d i n e i g h t 45' ( r e l a t i v e t o t h e circular cross-section) s h i p p e d by t r u c k o r r a i l w a y c a r .39 m (11.The p r i m a r y c o n s i d e r a t i o n g i v e n t o m a t e r i a l s f o r t h e r o t o r was reduced w e i g h t and r e d u c e d s t r e s s e s c a u s e d by h i g h body s t r e s s e s r e s u l t i n g from t h . O 1 m (6. For example. and t h e r o t o r b e a r i n g s . and t h e n c e t o the rotor car. . . A l l b e a r i n g l o a d s w i l l b e t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e t o w e r . Another c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n t h e s t r u c t u r a l d e s i g n was t o d i v i d e t h e r o t o r and c a r s t r u c t u r e i n t o modules and segments s o t h a t f a c t o r y p r e f a b r i c a t e d u n i t s c o u l d b e mass-produced and d e l i v e r e d t o t h e s i t e f o r f i n a l assembly. 3.21 m (10.55 f t ) I D . segments i n l e n g t h s t h a t could be o Upper b e a r i n g : Lower b e a r i n g : ID. w h e r e a s ~ e a r i n g ss i z e s a r e : t h e lower b e a r i n g r e a c t s only r a d i a l l o a d s . was used on a l l w e a t h e r s u r f a c e s . ' Corrosion r e s i s t a n t steel The d e s i g n c o n d i t i o n g o v e r n i n g o v e r a l l c a r w e i g h t was c o m p l e t e l y unexpected: t h e w e i g h t of 328. The upper b e a r i n g s u p p o r t s t h e e n t i r e r o t o r w e i g h t and s u p p o r t s t h e r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l amount o f r a d i a l l o a d p r e s e n t a t t h i s l o c a t i o n .own i n F i g u r e 1 3 i n c l u d e t h e r o t a r s p i n s y s t e m g e a r i n g . Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t a r e t h e upper and lower r o t o r s u p p o r t b e a r i n g s . d r i v e s h . e h i g h c e n t r i f u g a l f o r c e s r e s u l t i n g from r o t a t i o n a t 186 rpm. which are v e r y l a r g e .

A racetrack configuration is envisioned.6-m high ballast foundation of crushed coarse and fine aggregate. train by two wire ropes (70 mm diameter) attached to the main frame structure mid-point of the front and rear of each car. spring-loaded trolley arm attached to the car. The site included: Cross-section service road around the outside of the track. Each track will be built as follows: An excavated. road bed. Dynamic balancing of the rotor in the field after assembly was proven to be simple and effective in 1930: the rotor was rotated by its motor. and track. and a control building. roadbed. The point of attachment will be 3-m above the track-sufficient to allow . Similar methods would be used for balancing the rotors described herein. a Two viaducts under the track to faciliate access to the "in-field" portion of the track in order that the land can be used foq agriculture. welleompacted soil base. A typizal site layout. and telemetered control system. .Power transfer from the rotor car will be accomplished by a three-slipper.for the catenary deflection between cars. power distribution.2 m apart. Power will be collected by an overhead. The roadbed will consist of two parallel independent tracks. The rotor cars will be coupled together in an endless. actual track length and diameter will be larger than that shown in Figure 14. rigid trolley rail on the inside of the track. and rail configuration is shown in Figure 14. e Drains. however. The trolley will be supported by commercial light posts spaced about 12. e Trolleys. triple-tracked.utilities. A spur track leading to an assembly-maintenance. e A 1. and lead weights were fastened to structural members along the length of the rotor until smooth operation was observed on vibration measuring instrumentation.

i . . .

c o n t r o l l e d r e c t i f i e r d c motor c o n t r o l system. pavement o f s t e e l o A f l a t r a i l made of 51-cm wide by 10-cm t h i c k s t e e l b o l t e d t o t h e c o n c r e t e pavement e v e r y 1. Dynamic b r a k i n g o f t h e r o t o r c a n b e e i t h e r by r e g e n e r a t i v e b r a k i n g o r by a l l o w i n g v i s c o u s d r a g t o d e c e l e r a t e t h e r o t o r . and speed c o n t r o l w i l l b e a c h i e v e d by b a l a n c i n g t h e i n p u t power l e v e l t o t h e a r m a t u r e a g a i h s t t h e demand o f t h e c o n t r o l f u n c t i o n s i g n a l . Power r e q u i r e d t o overcome r o t o r i n e r t i a w h i l e a c c e l e r a t i n g th. t h a t t h e s e l o s s e s were h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t . A motor v o l t a g e .2 E l e c t r i c a l Desiqn The e l e c t r i c a l d e s i g n c o n s i d e r e d f o u r components.e r o t o r from 0 t o 186 rpm. These l o s s sources are: Power r e q u i r e d t o overcome t h e v i s c o u s f r i c t i o n o f t h e r o t o r c a u s e d by s p i n n i n g ( t h e o n l y one c o n s i d e r e d by Madaras) . .4-m-wide reinforced concrete. o r s p e e d p r o f i l e t i m e h i s t o r y This concept c a n b e u s e d a s a motor c o n t r o l f u n c t i o n . and t h a t Madaras c o n s i d e r e d o n l y o n e o f t h e s e l o s s mechanisms. w a s s e l e c t e d o v e r o t h e r methods b e c a u s e o f t h e need f o r cont i n u a i l y v a r i a b l e s p e e d c o n t r o l a s a f u n c t i o n o f wind speed and r o t o r p o s i t i o n on t h e t r a c k . and t h e l o s s i n power d u r i n g r o t o r d e c e l e r a t i o n (Madaras assumed c o m p l e t e r e c o v e r y o f t h e i n e r t i a l e n e r g y of t h e s p i n n i n g r o t o r by r e g e n e r a t i v e b r a k i n g ) . 500 v o l t d c motor on e a c h c a r w i t h a s i l i c o n . D i r e c t i o n r e v e r s a l w i l l be a c h i e v e d by r e v e r s i n g p o l a r i t y of power l e a d s t o t h e a r m a t u r e . a R o t o r S p i n System G e n e r a t o r System e C o n t r o l and I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n System E l e c t r i c a l I n t e r f a c e System e The r o t o r s p i n s y s t e m s e l e c t e d c o n s i s t s o f a 4 5 0 kW. c u r r e n t power. 3.e A 36-cm-thick by 2. o r a n e x t e r n a l s i g n a l f r o m t h e c e n t r a l computer c a n b e used f o r c o n t r o l .2-m o f t r a c k length. One o f t h e major r e s u l t s o f t h e s p i n motor s t u d y was t h e d i s c o v e r y t h a t t h e r e w e r e t h r e e s o u r c e s o f s p i n motor l o s s e s . and t h e need f o r r o t o r s p i n d i r e c t i o n r e v e r s a l t w i c e e a c h o r b i t of t h e t r a c k .

and t h e n t h e " m o t o r .. t h a t t h e r e i s only about 3 percent 1400~ \ L ~= 11OFT133.g e n e r a t o r " t h i r d t y p e o f motor h e a t i n g l o s s above) a b s o r b s o much power.. however.. 13. Madaras a l s o e r r e d when he assumed f u l l c a p t u r e of t h e s p i n n i n g r o t o r s i n e r t i a l e n e r g y by r e g e n e r a t i v e b r a k i n g . Of t h e s e t h r e e mechanisms. The r e s u l t s of t h i s s t u d y a r e shown i n F i g u r e 1 5 .. .e . However.u p c y c l e . Thus.a Power l o s t i n h .5rnl ~ I ocyl W m .t u r n e d . from 0 t o 45 p e r c e n t e f f i c i e n c y a s t h e motor speed i n c r e a s e s s l o w l y from 0 t o 70 p e r c e n t o f no-load s p e e d ) . = 3 0 MPl4(13. a s w i l l . e v e n during braking.e a t i n g motor w i n d i n g s d u r i n g t h e low s p e e d .uce t h e c o s t o f power t r a n s f e r equipment.592 186 RPM SLUG-FT2 (6305m-~q-5edI o f t h e power o r i g i n a l l y i n p u t t o t h e s p i n motor c a n b e r e c o v e r e d during regenerative braking. .4m/~l 1200 I ROTOR 1~~~ 7 MAXIMUM NET POWER OUTPUT -<-. we e l e c t e d t o use n a t u r a l viscous f o r c e s t o de-spin t h e r o t o r i n order t o s a v e w e a r on t h e s p i n motor and t o red. V. Of c o u r s e . . From t h i s s t u d y . l o s s e s d e c r e a s e t o o n l y a b o u t 10 p e r c e n t when t h e r o t o r reaches f u l l speed. Optimum Motor Size and Maximum Power Output v e r s u s Track Diameter. This curve i s f o r a c i r c u l a r t r a c k . S ~ ) 45. w e d e c i d e d t h a t a .t -400 0 O / - / (6:0) 1 (12 20) 4000 (1830) (2440) 8000 2000 TRACK DIAMETER - 6000 FEET im) Figure 15. viscous f r i c t i o n absorbs considerable heating losses ( l i k e the amounts of power b e f o r e it i s a v a i l a b l e f o r r e g e n e r a t i v e b r a k i n g . a c c e l e r a t i ' o n s t a g e d u r i n g which t i m e t h e inotor i s o p e r a t i n g a t v e r y low e f f i c i e n c y ( i .4 m / s (30 mph) Wind Speed.. 18 F T I S .:- The s e l e c t i o n o f t h e 450 k W s i z e f o r t h e s p i n motor was governed by a t r a d e s t u d y u t i l i z i n g o u r Madaras p l a n t performance s i m u l a t i o n s t u d y . t h e l a t t e r i s by f a r t h e most s e v e r e : o n l y 4 4 p e r c e n t of t h e power i n p u t t o t h e motor i s d e l i v e r e d t o t h e s h a f t d u r i n g e a c h s t a r t .. good d e s i g n p o i n t o c c u r r e d a t a 450 k W motor s i z e and a 1 3 7 2 m (4500 f t ) t r a c k diameter.

The control system will include the following component-s : A minicomputer-based primary controller in the control h01.~ three-phase. It is believed that the efficiency of the induction generator would be in the 80 percent to 85 percent range. Although a synchronous generator is more efficient. a racetrack pattern improves performance considerably over that in Figure 15. with a leading power factor of from 0.4m/s.be described later. This power factor would be corrected by a synchronous reactor s y s t e m at the control building distribution station. e Monitoring instruments and control actuator circuits on each car and on system network components. A wind sensor network dispersed around the track and hard wired underground to the primary controller. because of possible variations in car speed caused by stretching and contracting of the interconnecting cables as well as possible wheel slippage. .9. Then. 60 Hz alternating current induction generator was considered to be the best for a Madaras plant. A microcomputer-based controller on each car. A two-way radio telemetry system to link all the car units to the primary controller.8 to 0.1ae. additional circulating current power losses could be realized. Since it is planned to use four 2 5 0 kW generators on each rotor car (because of wheel drive torque limitations mentioned in the structural section) the alignment problem is more severe. the problems of aligning and maintaining precisely in phase all generators on all rotor cars in a plant seemed to overweigh the added efficiency one would gain from a synchronous generator. The generator selected for the Madaras system was sized for 1 MW rated output from each rotor car at a rated wind speed of 13. A schematic diagram of the complete electrical system on each rotor car is presented in Figure 16.

Telemetry Antenna 4 each l nduction Gen. 75 Amp 41601500V. 30 WYI Ground Brushes To Tracks Tracks Must Be Grounded ~ o ' p o w e rSystem Grid Ground Figure 16. 10 4160V. 250 KVA 4160V. 3 0 .20 Amp Circuits 4160V. 40 Amp M a i n & Branch Breakers. 75 Amp 4160V. 30 . 10 10 each . . etc. 30 . 3 0 . 4160V. E l e c t r i c a l S c h e m a t i c o f C i r c u i t r y on E a c h Rotor C a r . 40 Amp J160V. 30 . 150 Amp lighting Transformer & Breaker 24001120 Vac 20 KVA. 120 Vac. 30 . Circuits.

The s u b s t a t i o n would i n c l u d e t r a n s - f o r m e r s t o i n t e r f a c e t h e s y s t e m w i t h t h e commercial power g r i d a s w e l l a s t h o s e t o produce 4 8 0 V . 3 phase a r ~ d120 V 1 phase power f o r u t i l i t y c i r c u i t s used f o r l i g h t i n g and p l a n t equipment. and ( . however. Synchronous r e a c t o r s f o r power f a c t o r c o r r e c t i o n . CRT. The s u b s y s t e m would be l o c a t e d a d j a c e n t t o t h e c o n t r o l house t o s i m p l i f y and s h o r t e n a l l f e e d e r c i r c u i t s .o f f from t h e t r o l l e y e v e r y t h r e e . s o f u r t h e r d e s c r i p t i o n i s n o t w a r r a n t e d i n t h e summary.a n d one-half r o t o r c a r spacings t o l i m i t t r o l l e y amperage t o 500 a m p e r e s ) . D i s t r i b u t i o n c i r c u i t t o t h e t r o l l e y f e e d e r bus (power p i c k . a n d h a r d copy r e a d o u t s would b e a v a i l a b l e f o r m o n i t o r i n g and manual c o n t r o l modes a l s o would b e p r o v i d e d . p a n e l d i s p l a y s . 60 H z . 500 ampere c a p a c i t y ) . Substation. The s y s t e m network components would b e 4160V. . ( 2 ) t o d e t e r m i n e t h e e f f e c t o f mutual i n t e r f e r e n c e between r o t o r s o n power p l a n t o u t p u t a s a f u n c t i o n o f i n t e r r o t o r s p a c i n g . U t i l i t y feeder c i r c u i t s . System network e l e m e n t s r e q u i r e d t o i n t e r f a c e w i t h t h e v a r i o u s e l e c t r i c a l subsystems i n c l u d e : 8 e a a Car t r o l l e y and f e e d e r b u s (4160V.An o p e r a t o r s s t a t i o n i n t h e c o n t r o l house c o n s i s t i n g o f m o n i t o r i n g i n s t r u m e n t s and manual o v e r . PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS (1) t o c o n d u c t a d e s i g n The o b j e c t i v e s o f t h i s s t u d y were: t r a d e s t u d y of t h e v a r i o u s p l a n t o p e r a t i o n a l p a r a m e t e r s . S t a n d a r d equipment would b e used f o r t h e s e i t e m s . 4. Power p l a n t c o n t r o l would b e a u t o m a t i c .r i d e s of t h e primary c o n t r o l l e r . 3 p h a s e . 3 p h a s e equipment.3 ) t o d e t e r m i n e t h e n e t power o u t p u t i n t h e form o f power d u r a t i o n c u r v e s c o r r e c t e d f o r mutual i n t e r f e r e n c e e f f e c t s .

and for a racetrack having straight section S of any length required.186 rpm a Constant 186 rpm until track position of 245O a Viscous drag braking to stop 8 Reverse rotation direction and repeat cycle 9 Track Speed a Circular Track = 8.4 m/s (30 .32 ft) two end plates 2 a~ea .18G m2 (2000 ft ) Spin Motor Schedule (see Figure 17 for 1/2 of cycle) 8 filaximum angular acceleration at 450 kW to . end plate diameter = 9.8 m (.a height = 38 m (125 E t ) a diameter = 4. and all losses developed in the earlier studies. As a result of these studies. .9 m/s (20 mph) a Race Track = 13.Objectives of the major investigations in the design trade study were to select for final cost analysis: a Most efficient rotor geometry and size a Spin motor size and track diameter (already described in Figure 15). a Spin motor schedule. the following plant configurations and operational conditions were selected for the cost analysis. Our Madaras plant performance simulation program was used for this study. Output in the terms of power output/rotor for a circular track of diameter D. a Track speed and rotor rpm.9 m (16 ft) 8 r. geometrical and operational parameters. These results then were merged to define the plant configuration and operating conditions that appeared most attractive from a performance standpoint and in view of certain cost and efficiency consideration. e Rotor Geometry a AR=8 a e/d = 2 . This program has provisions for inputting all data.mph) . and simulates plant performance for any set of these conditions for any wind speed..

e n e r g y y i e l d by r e d u c i n g i n t e r .000 f t ) Wind Speeds 1 3 . .000 f t ) t o 19. and Motor rpm v e r s u s R o t o r P o s i t i o n on Track a s A f f e c t e d by u s e o f Viscous B r a k i n g .210 m (63.9m n = 186 RPM TRACK DIAMETER = 1372 m INSTANEOUS POWER GENERATED a -0. S p i n Motor Power. Net Power O u t p u t f o r One R o t o r . 3 A f l kW LYLLt W l l H t l t S l VlSLUUS H H A K I N t i : 4 S b kW -******** EFFECT OF USING 3 . and a T h r e e . = I3Am/s AR = 8 Vt = 55. ) A lower t h a n optimum t r a c k speed f o r t h e c i r c u l a r p l a n t s was s e l e c t e d t o improve a n n u a l mutual i n t e r f e r e n c e .r o t o r .4 m/s and 1 1 .S t e p Transmisskon t o Vary t h e S p i n Schedule. 4 m / s (30 mph) max 3. l o s s e s .1. It i s interesting t o n o t e t h a t t h e l o c i o f optimum performance o f t h e r a c e t r a c k and c i r c u l a r p l a n t s o c c u r a t a l l wind s p e e d s a t t r a c k s p e e d s of 13.9 m/s e/d = 2 I ROTOR DIAMETER = 4. respectively. R e g e n e r a t i v e Braking. i a m c t e r w i t h 3050 rn (10. a C i r c u l a r Track = 1372 m ( 4 5 0 0 f t ) R a c e t r a c k . CYCl F : WITH RFGFNFRATIVF RRBKING . (The p a r a m e t e r X r e p r e s e n t s t h e t r a c k s p e e d (VL) t o windspeed (VW) r a t i o .1 3 7 2 m r n i i d .0 m/s ( 1 0 mph) min A p l o t showing t y p i c a l performance o f a c i r c u l a r and a r a c e t r a c k p l a n t i s p r e s e n t e d i n F i g u r e 18.6- .8- INITIAI. 2 m / s . V ..S T E P TRANSMISSION : 505 kW AND IMPROVED VISCOUS BRAKING -----I I I I I I I I I I 90 1 0 0 120 140 160 180 ROTOR POSITION ON TRACK - 200 220 8 DEGREES 2 40 260 270 F i g u r e 17.

conducted by P r o f e s s o r H. The mutual i n t e r f e r e n c e s t u d y . L a r s e n o f t h e A i r F o r c e I n s t i t u t e o f Technology. now under development by t h e McDonnell A i r c r a f t Company. Performance is P r e s e n t e d f o r Both a 1370 m (4500 ft) Diameter C i r c u l a r Track and a R a c e t r a c k h a v i n g 1370 m (4500 f t ) Diameter Ends and 4880 m (16.The d a t a i n F i g u r e 17 d o n o t i n c l u d e t h e r e d u c t i o n i n performance c a u s e d by m u l t i p l e r o t o r mutual i n t e r f e r e n c e . N e t Power Output from one Rotor v e r s u s X as a F u n c t i o n o f Wind Speed.C. made u s e o f t h e v o r t e x a n a l y s i s which h e d e v e l o p e d f o r a n a l y z i n g t h e G i r o m i l l .000 f t ) S t r a i g h t S e c t i o n s . 1 . Figure 18.

An a d d i t i o n a l wind d u r a t i o n c u r v e f o r Medicine Bow. and s i n c e t h e a n a l y s i s h a s been v a l i d a t e d by w i n d t u n n e l s t u d i e s . The d a t a from wind s p e e d a t which a c u r v e e n d s r e p r e s e n t s t h e c u t . and mutual i n t e r f e r e n c e losses.i n wind s p e e d . a l s o was used t o p r o v i d e a means f o r comparing Madaras p l a n t performance w i t h t h a t o f a l a r g e a r r a y o f MOD-1 wind t u r b i n e g e n e r a t o r s a t Medicine Bow. Beyond t h a t p o i n t .p r o d u c t i v e t o add m o r e r o t o r s The e f f e c t o f i n t e r f e r e n c e is intensified as The t h e number of r o t o r s .ed by a l l o t h e r r o t o r s i n a power p l a n t . These power d u r a t i o n c u r v e s w e r e o b t a i n e d from t h e s t a n d a r d wind d u r a t i o n a t a height of 9 m e t e r s i n accordance with our design s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . The n e t e f f e c t i s t h a t t h e v o r t e x f i e l d c a u s e s c h a n g e s i n t h e wind v e l o c i t y v e c t o r which r e d u c e s t h e magnitude o f t h e r o t o r ' s p r o p u l s i v e f o r c e al.ong t h e t r a c k . ~ y o m i n g . o u t p u t power i s u n d e f i n e d . mutual i n t e r f e r e n c e l o s s e s i r i c r e a s e u n t i l a p o i n t i s r e a c h e d where it i s c o u n t e r . c u r v e h a v i n g a mean wind speed o f 8 . N i n c r e a s e s and wind s p e e d d e c r e a s e s . t h e method was c o n s i d e r e d a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e Madaras r o t o r m u t u a l i n t e r f e r e n c e s t u d y . Professor Larsen's a n a l y s i s e s s e n t i a l l y determines t h e e f f e c t o f a l l v o r t i c e s shed from e a c h r o t o r i n t h e p l a n t on t h e v o r t i c e s sh. and t h e n d e t e r m i n e s t h e e f f e c t o f t h i s v o r t e x f i e l d on t h e wind v e l o c i t y v e c t o r a t a l l p o i n t s a r o u n d t h e t r a c k o r b i t . The l a s t a s p e c t o f t h i s s t u d y was t o d e v e l o p power d u r a t i o n c u r v e s f o r v a r i o u s . respectively. A s r o t o r s p a c i n g d e c r e a s e s . These wind d u r a t i o n c u r v e s and t h e r e s u l t i n g power d u r a t i o n c u r v e s from two Madaras p l a n t s i s p r e s e n t e d i n F i g u r e s 2 0 and 2 1 . This curve was u p r a t e d t o a h e i g h t of 2 5 m ( t h e c e n t e r h e i g h t of t h e Madaras r o t o r ) by t h e u s u a l 0. aerodynamic.167 power law. F i g u r e 1 9 were used i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h d a t a from F i g u r e 1 8 t o d e v e l o p t h e n e t o u t p u t from a t o t a l Madaras p l a n t t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t a l l e l e c t r o m e c h a n i c a l .S i n c e t h e G i r o m i l l and t h e Madaras system a r e e s s e n t i a l l y comp a r a b l e i n c o n c e p t . 1 m / s .s i z e d Madaras p l a n t s .

. Constant Rotor Speed and Track Speed o f 1 8 6 rpm and 1 3 . Mutual I n t e r f e r e n c e Loss F a c t o r v e r s u s Wind Speed f o r Various Numbers of Rotors on a 1524-m Diameter Track.F i g u r e 19 . 4 m / s . R e s p e c t i v e l y .

. Power D u r a t i o n C u r v e s f o r t h e Two P l a n t s Shown i n F i g u r e 6. M o d i f i e d Design Wind D u r a t i o n Curve t o R e p r e s e n t Wind C o n d i t i o n s a t a R o t o r Mid-Height o f 2 5 m ( 8 2 f t ) Above Mean T e r r a i n Level. 1 3 ) .14 Based on t h e V = 9. PLANT l PLAN'T l o HOURS I N ONE YEAR Fiqure 21.CUMMULATIVE HOURS 2 GIVEN WIND SPEED OCCURS Figure 2 0 .6 m / s Design Wind ~ u r a t i o nCurve a t 25-m H e i g h t ( F i g u r e 6 .

It should be remembered that the racetrack plant is dependent upon a unidirectional wind (including reciprocal directions) for proper operation.5 percent annual cost and a 30 year life.85 MW circular plant would be $1539/kW in a region where mean wind speed is 8. the expected energy cost would be 6. COST/PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS Cost estimates in a modular form suitable for scaling Madaras plants to a wide range of sizes were developed by a professional engineering firm which specializes in cost estimating.2C/kW-hr. respectively. These plots indicate the relationship of the following parameters on cost and'rated power output: b : inter-rotor spacing in number of rotor diameters. Wyoming. would be ideal sites for such a'plant. such as Medicine Bow. and land cost of $1500/acre. large racetrack plants appear to be quite attractive. On the other hand. For this same plant. Our analysis indicated that even the most efficient circular plant was not sufficiently economical for further consideration.5 percent of total plant cost. . and Figure 23 is based on annual costs equal to 16. the manufacture of 500 plants comprised of 20 rotors on a 1372-m diameter track and a 16. Even when accounting for the effects of an 85 percent learning curve on the rotor and track.5. the minimum installed cost of a 7. In addition.1 m/s at a 9-m height.76 x lo6 kW-hr. of cost/kW and cost/kW-hr versus rated power. d. where d = 4. Figures 22 and 23 contain parametric plots.9 m (16 ft) S r length of the straight section of the racetrack N = number of rotors These curves do not reflect the effect of learning curves. based on annual energy output of 37. Such areas as those near 'large bodies of water or near the Great Plains area. do not include land cost. generalized equations describing plant geometry were developed in terms corresponding to the modular cost variables.

RATED POWER - MW F i g u r e 22.R o t o r S p a c i n g . 1 m / s @ 9 m. and Number of Rotors. DOE Design Wind D u r a t i o n Curve: V = 8 . DOE Design Wind D u r a t i o n Curve: V=8. 32 . Energy C o s t v e r s u s Rated Power f o r R a c e t r a c k Conf i g u r a t i o n a s a F u n c t i o n of I n t e r . U n i t P l a n t C o s t v e r s u s Rated Power f o r R a c e t r a c k Conf i g u r a t i o n a s a F u n t i o n o f I n t e r . Length o f S t r a i g h t S e c t i o n of T r a c k . Length o f S t r a i g h t S e c t i o n o f T r a c k .1 m / s @9m.RATED POWER - MW F i g u r e 21.R o t o r S p a c i n g . and Number o f R o t o r s .

29 722 1. These data indicate that land cost has an insignificant effect on energy cost because plant cost is high relative to land cost.78 1.82 463 1. Viaducts under the track at each end would provide i . wind duration curve.84 1.70 2.7 228 1170 748 --Rotors-85%L.24 1.56 1.79 1.56 1.28 2.86 1. Energy Cost s C/kW-hr (2) P l a n t ' ' ' Land Cost $/Acre Cost 3000 1500 500 1000 0 $/kW 2. and the area enclosed by a fence line offset 100 ft from The "infikld" area all plant tracks and buildings (An in Table 2 ) .11 342 1.66 681 2.04 1. and mean wknd speed on Madaras plant and energy cost are shown in Table 2.09 1.cost. Plant numbers indicate size.71 2. Sea level air density was used for Table 2 configurations.28 1. land .08 1.50 1.72 1. Costs are in 1978 dollars.31 2.indicates a Medicine Bow.09 2.25 1..e. inside the track would be retained by the owner for agricultural purposes. 60.32 342 1.SEA LEVEL DEiJSITY (7) ON v Plant No.22 2. Plts.9 m). TABLE 2 EFFECT OF LAND COST.80 1.Table 2 presents cost and performance data for the two largest Madaras plants studied.03 1. and the length of the straight track section is .20 2.19 2.69 2.06 321 1.20 681 1.30 2. AND MEAN WIND SPEED ?LAXT AND' EiiERG-Y COST .24 1.28 1.58 492 1.29 1.7 211 1103 745 14-60M 9.49 1.50 1. Track 9aL.5% of plant cost.49 1. LEARNING CURVES.C.03 1.85 1.84 1.19 2.64 2. Rotors 1 10 100 1 10 100 1 10 100 1 10 100 170 1700 17000 190 1900 19000 170 1700 17000 190 1900 19000 44-60 8.73 722 2.1 228 975 748 49-60M 9.50 463 1. The separate and combined effect of learning curves. No.57 1.4.63 2.000 ft (18.55 1.08 1. for Plant 49-60..25 2. and also because we elected to purchase only that land required for the track and road.79 1.05 (1) Does not include land cost (2) Based on annual cost = 16. -- 43-60 9 -m ' Height R MW m/s 8.62 2.27 321 1. the power station. The suffix M Wyoming. inter-rotor spacing is 49 rotor diameters (d .27 2.28 2.300 m).C.88 492 1.1 211 Annual Output *n 10bkW-hr Acre 745 931 No. i.64 1.

The more important ground rules for the comparison were: 1978 dollars 5 year construction period Construction interest at 7% Plant Life of 30 years Financing: Federal Annual Fixed Rate = 8. designed 3 by the General Electric Company . and these bases were coordinated with Hightower. Department of Interior for installation at Medicine Bow. open.access to the property. unbroken expanse that would be attractive for large scale farming (about 6460 acres for Plant 44-60). respectively. modern HA-WTG1s.41% Private Annual Fixed Rate = 15% . Comparisons of the Madaras system with horizontal axis wind turbine generators (HA-WTG) were made to determine whether or not Madaras plants showed promise of producing electrical energy at a lower cost than HA-WTGts ( the basic objective of this study). These data indicate that energy from Madaras plants is sensitive to learning curves. and because the study included all costs required to connect the HA-WTG array into a complete plant. as shown drammatically in Figure 22. and to a much smaller extent on Table 2 (compare Plant 49-60 with Plant 44-60 energy costs) . S . Madaras plants also are more economical as they are built larger. These plants were selected for the comparison because they utilized large.J. Wyoming. Hightower2 of the Bureau of Reclamation. and the property would be a large. These two plants consisted of 49 and 98 MOD-1 WTGts. Equitable bases for the comparison were developed. The learning curve effect on energy cost for a given plant can be seen by comparing one column of figures under a given land cost or by comparing Plant 49-60 with Plant 44-60. just as this Madaras plant study has done. Comparisons were made with HA-WTG plants proposed by Mr.

Plant 2 is compared with HA-WTG Plant 2a. bccause costs in Table 2 were altered to conform to the comparison ground rules upon which the data in Table 3 are based. management.81 (2131 m elevation) a a a a a Two plant sizes. and overhead. The comparison was made for the following two sets of conditions: Medicine Bow -air density ratio=0.7 m/s @ 9-m height Federal financing Land cost = $200/acre = Other Site -air density ratio 1. The cost results for Plants 3 and 6 in Table 3 do not agreg with those in Table 2.1 m/s @ 9-m height Private financing Land Cost = $3000/acre The results of this comparison are shown in Table 3.0 - sea level a a Same two plant sizes Mean wind speed = 8. etc. electrical connection. Madaras Plant 1 is compared with HA-WTG Plant la. Plant ID numbers assist in the comparison. each type: z 98 MW. and annual cost and energy of each plant. which describes the geometry. contingencies. and interest. i. .e.a a a Operation and ~aintenanceannual cost 2% of base plant cost Land purchased a Net area (An) in Table 2 for Madaras Plant a 1500 ft diameter per HA-WTG (specified by Hightower) Same learning curve equations and 85% learning curve for WTG and Madaras rotor Cost elements in the estimate for both plants included all direct costs for equipment.. engineering. Plant 3 (also 6) was added for completeness since it was the largest Madaras plant analyzed. performance. and land. installed cost. 196MW Mean Wind speed = 9.

were obtained from ~ i ~ h t o w e and r ~ from General 131ectric3.81-7000 ft(2134rn) above m s l . a l l o t h e r s f o r wind d u r a t i o n c u r v e V = 8 . 1 m/s. due t o o u t r i g h t p u r c h a s e o f I l h d . F i x e d c h a r g e s f o r M e d i c i n e Bow p l a n t s b a s e d o n F e d e r a l f i n a n c i n g a t f i x e d c h a r g e o f 8 . Cost estimates of MOC-1 systems. Based o n a i r d e n s i t y r a t i o o f 0. The s u f f i x l e t t e r M r e f e r s t o Medicine Bow p l a n t s . not on manuractured hardvrare cost. A l l o t h e r s . fixed charge = 15 p e r c e n t . 4 1 p e r c e n t . e q u i l a t e r a l t r i a n g u l a r a r r a y a t 1 5 r o t o r d i a m e t e r (d = 6 1 m) Contingencies i n H A W T G p l a n t inched i n s i t e and f a c i l i t i e s f i q u r e . s t a g g e r e d . . Contingencies f o r H A W T G p l a n t s a r e included i n t h e e l e c t r i c a l connection c o s t . Both the Madaras estimates and the MOD-1 estimates2t3 were based on engineering studies. used without modifications. I n c l u d e s a l l o w a n c e f o r f u n d s used d u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n .TABLE 3 OVERALL COMPARISON O F SEVERAL MADARAS AND HA-WTG PLANTS AT TWO WIND REGIONS (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) W T G s p a c e d i n t h r e e rows.

Madaras plant energy cost is from 13. It is believed that a reasonably efficient conceptual design for the Madaras system has been developed.1 m/s mean wind speed region. and at the other site. MOD-1 performance data for this other site were obtained from General Electric.T.R. '~orneich . September 19 to 21.5 percent to 22. 6. . . Volume 1. but land affects the relative cost position of HA-WTG plants because HA-WTG plants use considerably more land area than Madaras plants. less net area needs to be purchased for Madaras plants. and that this design fulfills all criteria initially established. and the remaining land area in the "infield" of a Madaras plant can be used more efficiently for agriculture or industry than the broken up tracts of land scattered among arrays of HA-WTG plants. The study has successfully addressed each of the unanswered questions outlined in Paragraph 1. 1977. Annual operation and maintenance costs of Madaras plants are greater because of their added complexity. CONCLUSIONS This conceptual design study of the Madaras Rotor Power Plant included an analysis of all major components of the Madaras system. Energy cost of Madaras plants at Medicine Bow varies from 4 percent to 12 percent higher than that for comparable HA-WTG plants. e Madaras plant energy cost relative to HA-WTG energy cost is unaffected by the magnitude of the annual fixed cost rate. Sponsored by the United States Department of Energy. Proceedings of the Third Biennial Conference and Workshop on Wind Energy conversion Systems. Annual energy output and hence plant factor is higher for the Madaras plants than for the HA-WTG plants at the 8. and has fulfilled the basic study objective.1 Madaras plants use considerably less gross land area than HA-WTG units spaced 15 rotor diameters apart (915 m).2 percent less than HA-WTG cost.The major observations drawn from the data in Table 3 are : o Plant cost is about equal for both systems.

The aerodynamic and mechanical losses are tolerable. 4. No limitations were noted that would restrict maximum plant capacity to 228 MW. superior structural alternative to 200-ft to 300-ft (61 m to 91 m) diameter. flexible wind turbine blades when subjected to wind. The free stream and boundary layer wind tunnel data obtained during this study are the most complete set of data on rotating cylinder versus geometry and wind speed profile available in the literature. Madaras plants are capable of providing plant capacities of interest to electric utility companies. Thls set of data can be used directly to predict full-sized rotating cylinder performance. 2. and tower loads. but there is need to reduce the electrical losses significantly. racetrack plant confiqurations must be used for Madaras plants. 6. and little improvement in performance is noted as track diameter increased. Madaras plants having circular Lrack coaIiyurdLiur~s are not economically competitive with HA-WTG plants because of the large electric losses of the spin motor and the mutual interference losses which limit the number of rotor cars to about 20 per plant.The more significant conclusions drawn from this study are itemized below. gust. Losses in a Madaras plant are significantly larger than those of a HA-WTG plant.9 MW to 228 MW with annual energy output varying from 32 x lo6 kW-hr to 1170 x lo6 kW-hr are feasible. The minimum track diameter appears to be 1372 m (4500 ft) . Until electrical and interference losses are substantially reduced. It is believed that the 125-ft high (38 m) Madaras rotor offers a. 3. Madaras plants having capacities from 7.9 m) and the minimum track diameter (end diameter of a racetrack) is about 1372 m. 1. . Thus. minimum energy cost is obtained where minimum inter-rotor spacing is about 44 rotor diameters (d = 4. For both circular and racetrack plant configurations. 5.

economy of scale. and will require higher operation and maintenance costs than a horizontal axis wind turbine system. The advantages of the Madaras plant over a comparablysized HA-WTG plant are: 8. energy yield. flexible rotor blades exposed in a wind and gust environment. Madaras plants use land more efficiently and use less land than HA-WTG plants. is diminished by the Madaras system's limited application arising from a possible scarcity of large. although attractive. a A rotating cylinder rotor structure is simpler and can be built to have greater structural strength. flat. a o Madaras plants show higher sensitivity to economy of scale. if further studies indicate only racetrack plant configurations are feasible. The Madaras Rotor Power Plant concept using a racetrack plant configuration appears at least to be economically competitive with horizontal axis wind turbine generators. This advantage. Thus. The results of this study indicate that. has higher losses. Madaras racetrack plant energy cost varied from 12 percent higher to 22 percent lower than the energy cost of MOD-1 plants. 9. durability.7. and reliability as compared to large. The use of a racetrack plant configuration is necessary for optimum Madaras plant performance (at this time). although the Madaras concept does not represent a major breakthrough in wind energy conversion technology. Madaras plants will be limited to regions having nearly unidirectional winds or to those regions in which off-axis winds have an angular variation of less than f45O and which occur only a small portion of a total year. and more probably the concept shows promise of out-performing horizontal axis systems from a number of standpoints: structural durability. The potential problem areas and disadvantages of Madaras plants relative to HA-WTG plants are: The Madaras system is more complex. land areas having sufficiently unidirectional wind velocities. and efficient use of land. .

:' costs of the system A thorough study of manufacturing . i . producing Madaras plants.iesn\il: per Lur. i i l . and the determination of detailed costs of mass-produced units A I . the results of the present study. At this stage of the investigation. f e cycle cost study to include cystem reliability. However. and depreciation .op the most cost-effective methods for. as well as maintenance. Although more efficient HA-WTG systems (MOD-2) are being developed. it is believed that more efficient Madaras systems also can be developed given the opportunity to conduct the necessary design studies. w i n .10.11d Definition of mutual interference for racetrack plants and for circular track plants havinq track end diameters greater than 8000 ft (2439 m) Development of optimal spin schedules which include modulating rotor speed at all points along the track such that the propulsive force is optimized at all times a Further consideration of different types of electrical equipment.ri(:~-! Reduction of rotor weight and inertia by optimized design and use of new materials and construction techniques that ire cost effective. which are thought to be conservative. d. Areas requiring y i nnl i . Included in this analysis should be the consideration of larger rotors. operation. and hence reduce spin power. In-depth otudiea of power collection a ~ ~distribution il as well as system control technique^ t n dnvel. 11.~~~irl. and ti Pam en^. : e further fit. without a prnpnxtionate d e e r e a s t in aeroilyr. transmissions. i n g techniques. it is not possible to state conclusively whether or not the Madaras system will significantly out-perform a similarly-sized horizontal axis wind turbine system. are sufficiently encouraging to warrant further investigation. and braking techniques Analyses of different end plate designs which promise to reduce viscous friction and inertia loads.

.~. Volume I .v. Repo'r't. S e p t e m b e r . T h i r d B i e n n i a l Conference and Workshop on Wind Energy Conversion Systems. page 76.for .S. S. ' ~ i . 3.t: '.REFERENCES 1.t i'o.' Midte'r"m.l. P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e . Hightower." P r e s e n t e d a t t h e Annual Meeting of t h e M i s s o u r i B a s i n Systems Group. S t a n l e y J . Fe.i.i'l. Sponsored by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Department of.a. . 'I. "A Proposed P l a n f o r I n t e g r a t i o n o f Wind T u r b i n e G e n e r a t o r s w i t h a H y d r o e l e c t r i c System.s't:ia:a.. B a r c h e t o f t h e G e n e r a l E l e c t r i c Co. Volume 1.n.D.b -No.i.e. J . Energy.s. Korneich. Energy R e s e a r c h and Development A d m i n i s t r a t i o n .+he. T . V . R .' Ap'r'i'l' 1975.. ~ . 1 9 t o 21. R . 1977. . 1977. *U. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-640-258-18?i6 41 . ~ . March 9 . S i o u x F a l l s .l' B r u l l e .n. November 2 1 n7c 2. Paper by R .v'einber G e n e r a t i o n o f ' E l e c t r ' i c ' Powe'r'. .. i.